UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Who says vaccines are effective? Oh, that’s Big Pharma’s and the U.S. CDC/FDA’s shtick, whereas in reality, things are grossly different.

According to Boston.com [1], over the last two months forty members of the student body have contracted mumps while

A month ago, the department determined that all infected students to that point had received a mumps vaccine prior to contracting the infection, and that 99 percent of undergraduate students at the college had met the state’s immunization requirements. [1]

What’s gone wrong? Why aren’t vaccines, the legally-untouchable ‘holy cows’ of allopathic medicine, doing what they’re supposed to and mandated for, i.e., producing ‘herd immunity’? It looks like Harvard has a sick herd on its hands!

Can it be that those vaccinees were vaccinated with an MMR vaccine that had its efficacy ratings for the mumps active fudged [fraud?] for ten long years, as per two Merck whistleblowers’ lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia? [2,3]

Interestingly,

Harvard students aren’t alone — during the time of the school’s outbreak, Massachusetts had already confirmed 12 cases of mumps across the state this year, including UMass Boston two confirmed cases in March at UMass Boston and one case in February at Bentley University in Waltham. [1]

There’s nothing more to prove a point than “the more the merrier,” particularly when those who received their state-required school vaccinations now suffer in disbelief that vaccines really are not effective.

The real shocker eventually comes, though, when other vaccine-preventable diseases start making the rounds of day care centers, kindergartens, grade schools, high schools, colleges, and universities. All those baby shots and boosters students received during childhood [4,] apparently have hobbled their immune systems. God only knows how they will be able to cope and handle what once were considered “childhood communicable diseases.”

Friday, April 29, 2016

May we have a statement on the treatment by the House of public petitions that attract a large number of signatures? As the Leader of the House knows, there will be a debate on 9 May about the petition to stop the Government spending public money on pro-remain propaganda in the EU referendum. As of a few moments ago, 217,072 people had signed the petition, but the debate on it, like others of a similar nature, will be held in Westminster Hall, where no vote can be held. Should it not be possible for the Backbench Business Committee to hold such debates in the main Chamber? Otherwise, petitioners will be disappointed to find that, although their concerns are debated, the House is unable to vote on them.

Like the rest of you city council continues to be as divided as the Capulets and the Montagues when it comes to fluoridating Cornwall water.

And not unlike another tragedy, it appears a razor-thin majority at the council table will vote to see fluoride returned to the water supply.

I've railed against fluoride in our water, in large part because workers at the filtration plant shouldn't be exposed to it, and the $350,000 price tag attached to system upgrades is too much when one considers that most of the additives in the water end up right back in the St. Lawrence River before passing through our bodies. The way council intends to vote on this issue is becoming clearer as time unfolds – and those of us against water fluoridation had best be prepared for disappointment.

Based on the comments made Monday night, it's fair to suggest Councillors Andre Rivette, Elaine MacDonald, Denis Carr and perhaps even Bernadette Clement are in favour putting fluoride back. Clement wasn't nearly as passionate as some of her other colleagues, but the way she was talking Monday night it's fair to suggest she's leaning towards fluoride.

On the flipside are Councillors Claude McIntosh, David Murphy, Justin Towndale and Mayor Leslie O'Shaughnessy who are against the practice. Undecideds/unknowns include Councillors Maurice Dupelle, Carilyne Hebert and Mark MacDonald. But based on the scuttlebutt I am hearing from city hall, it's likely those on the fence will vote fluoride – though I hope they don't.

I floated the idea a couple of weeks ago of going the route of a referendum at the next municipal election, but there's not enough support around the council table for such a move – which means sometime next month, likely the first meeting of May, councillors will vote to finally put this issue to rest.

Towndale is now on an extended leave for the next three months while he trains to become a member of the Canadian Forces, so consider that a lost vote on the 'no' side and an even tougher chore for those against fluoride.

WHERE'S THE UNION?: The union representing employees at the water filtration plant had requested time before council to lay out their objections to fluoridation. Union members are especially fearful of the hydrofluorosilicic acid that is added to our water to create fluoride. The acid is extremely toxic and has left scars on the concrete at the filtration plant where it has, on occasion, accidentally spilled.

The union was told it would not be allowed to address council – likely because the city wants to avoid setting a precedent that would allow other employee groups to make similar pleas if they feel slighted. It says here if the union is serious about this, then members need to take their message to the people. Protests and information sessions need to be organized.

And while we're on the subject of unions and employees, it surprises me that more councillors with an NDP affiliation aren't stepping up to protect those workers by voting against fluoride.

In your editorial, “The lead lurking in our water,” and in the recent overwhelming media coverage about lead in our drinking water, I find no mention of the role fluoride plays in this process. In controlled laboratory experiments fluoride combined with chlorine increased the leaching of lead from pipes and fittings used in plumbing (Maas RP et al. 2007).
The vast majority of the drinking water supplied to Snohomish County residents has both of these chemicals added. You may remember that the city of Everett, the supplier of water to most of Snohomish County, had to shut down its fluoride adding process for a number of days not too long ago to repair the extensive damage done to their system by the chemicals it was adding to the water.
Most countries do not add fluoride to their water. China is one of those countries. What do they do with their industrial waste called fluoride? They sell it to us.
My favorite quote from John Wayne: “Life is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid.”
Fred C. Howard
Snohomish

New Zealand plans to drown its citizens in toxic fluoridesby Jon RappoportApril 28, 2016(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
“Oh, I love New Zealand. It’s one of the most beautiful places on Earth. It’s…what? What did you say?…No, that’s impossible. That couldn’t be happening. They’re doing what??”
The strategy of the New Zealand government is simple.
A series of local movements is successful. So kill them off by claiming decision-making must occur at a “higher level.” Take power out of the hands of locals.
The people can’t represent themselves. That’s dangerous. No, big government will represent the people—by squashing what the people want.
The issue is fluorides. I recently wrote two articles demonstrating the extreme toxicity of this substance, which of course is dumped in water supplies as a medical treatment. (fluoride archive here).
In New Zealand, a group called Fluoride Free NZ has been highly successful working with town councils to ban fluorides from local communities.
But these successes are a threat, because they contradict the lies medical authorities spew about how safe fluorides are, and because grass-roots victories erode blind faith in centralized government.
Here are quotes from Kane Titchener, who represents the group, Fluoride Free NZ, in New Zealand. His remarks lay out what’s happening behind the scenes in that natural paradise:
“…the fluoridation issue has been brought to a head. The NZ Government is proposing that the [bigger] District Health Boards take over the decision making [about] fluoridation [in water supplies] as opposed to the local councils. This is because we have been very good at winning at the local council level.”
“Fluoride Free NZ was formed in 2003. Since that time we have had many substantial victories in local Councils throughout New Zealand. Local Councils that have stopped [fluoridating water supplies] as a result of Fluoride Free NZ’s lobbying efforts: New Plymouth; Taumarunui; Waipukurau; Far North…”
“In summary, the Government is planning to implement mandatory fluoridation to the whole of New Zealand. Currently, only around 50% of households are on fluoridated water, with only 23 out of 67 local councils still fluoridating, while voicing their growing concerns about fluoridation risks and dangers. In response to more and more councillors and mayors deciding against fluoridation, the Government is now taking the decision away from local councils and communities and putting the power into the hands of District Health Boards (DHB), who are under the direct control of Central Government.”
If you think Fluoride Free NZ’s successes working with town councils is a walk in the park, think again. This group has scored victories against long odds. This group is smart, dedicated, and effective.
They represent what can happen when strong, clear-sighted, creative individuals band together to accomplish a righteous goal.
And the tyrannical response of big government is predictable.
However, there is going to be blowback against that government in New Zealand.
The degree and power of the blowback is going to depend, in part, on the response of people around the world who become aware of the situation and make their voices heard.
Contact Fluoride Free NZ. Help them. Spread their press releases all over the world.
Why should a government be permitted to dump poison into the water and call it medical treatment?
And having called it medical treatment, by what power can a government mandate it for all citizens without informed consent, without the explicit permission of those millions of patients? Yes, patients, because that’s what they are. They’re being treated every day.
By what power can this happen? Dictatorship calling itself democracy.
A note to tourists: how do you feel about traveling to New Zealand and bathing in, and drinking, poison? Do you like that bonus for spending your good money in “paradise?”
If not, you might want to contact the New Zealand tourism authority (newzealand.com) and let them know about your change of plans.
Such organizations are always interested in money, where it’s coming from—and where it won’t be coming from.Jon Rappoport

Imagine a place where the state mass medicates the population with a scientifically proven toxin that itself is a freely acknowledged waste product of heavy industry. This mass medication takes place irrespective of citizens health needs, is arbitrary in its administration, and is enforced without any democratic consensus or independent scrutiny. In addition this mass medication costs taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year, and yet 99.9% of its output never hits its intended target.

Welcome to Western Australia in 2015. After 49 years of unquestioning acquiescence to to this illogical dogma it is time for WA's citizens to take back ownership of our most precious resource - our water supply.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Dentists are having to go into Lincolnshire schools to teach children how to brush their teeth.They are being sent in after the revelation by Lincolnshire Community Health that more than 300 children across the county had to be put under general anaesthetic last year to have rotten teeth removed.
Teachers, dentists and community health services are working to educate parents and children against all the dangers that can lead to that stage.
Senior specialist dental nurse Emma Fletcher said: "It's very shocking. General anaesthetic is something we want to avoid especially in children for something that is a preventable disease."
Dentists only put children under anaesthetic as a last resort but fear parents aren't aware of the dangers of problems reaching that stage.

Twenty independent dental practices have now signed up to 'adopt' and visit a school in their area so far including Lincoln, Sleaford, Boston, Horncastle and Grantham.The dental team delivers a Better Oral Health workshop and set up racks for toothbrushes and a system for reception children to learn how to brush their teeth.She explained that children from the age of six can use adult toothpaste which should contain a fluoride level of 1,450 parts per million.Emma Fletcher said: "A lot of children don't like minty toothpaste. They complain they won't use it because it's minty."Supermarkets particularly do offer flavoured toothpastes and as long as they contain the 1,450 ppm of fluoride that's absolutely fine."It's especially important for these children that their brushing and their diet is up to scratch as they're probably more at risk.

Gina Hargrave, from the Lincolnshire Community Health Services NHS Trust, said: "This is a great way for children and their parents to understand how brushing teeth every day with a fluoride toothpaste helps to protect teeth from tooth decay."Prevention is so much better than cure. Working together with parents, schools and local dental practices we can make sure that children in Lincolnshire have something to smile about."She is now training dental staff on how to promote oral health to five year olds as part of the scheme.

Charlotte Hickerton, head teacher at St Peter at Gowts Primary School in Lincoln said: "The project is a fantastic idea to promote kids' dental hygiene amongst our children and families."We think it will benefit the children so much by starting this routine so early on in their reception class."It's going to be very easy, just five minutes a day after they have had their dinner, then hopefully they'll set up that routine for the rest of their lives."

In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be told.

The Christian Science Monitor, who had assigned the story, never published it.

Their ensuing article, “Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” has been posted on websites, sometimes with distortions, deletions, or additions. I spoke with Griffiths, and he told me to be careful I was reading a correct copy of his piece. (You can find it—“Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” at fluoridealert.org.)

Griffiths also told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water, versus communities with unfluoridated water, miss a major point: fluorides are everywhere—they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs, and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide)

I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.

Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, which was launched to build the first A-bomb.

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”

The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.

Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ [against persons who had been poisoned by fluoride and would sue for damages]… The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”

So A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.

The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret op called “Program F.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.

Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.

Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.

Flash forward. Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix (see also here), the head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”

Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.

But Griffiths/Bryson uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the [uranium] is the causative factor.”

The 1944 memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Warren was asked to give his okay to do animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.

But any records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.

Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.

Who was brought in to advise Mullenix 50 years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries? It turns out that Hodge, back in the 1940s, had made suggestions to do effective PR promoting fluoride as a dental treatment. So his presence by Mullenix’s side, all those years later, was quite possibly as an agent assigned to keep track of her efforts.

The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified of lawsuits and ensuing revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.

Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.

The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem.

The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.

Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents [near the A-bomb facility]…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”

This was a launching pad for fluorides as “successful dental treatments.”

In the film, Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper rails about the destruction fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, this character is fleshed out as some kind of far-right-wing fanatic. How odd that he and other military men in the movie are, in fact, ready and willing to start a nuclear war. Odd because, unknown to the Strangelove script writer, fluorides were, in fact, very toxic and were an integral part of the very program that created atomic bombs.

Jon Rappoport

For decades, fluoridation of drinking water has been recognized as a achievement in Public Health interventions. According to the CDC water fluoridation remains the most equitable and cost-effective method of delivering fluoride to all members of most communities, regardless of age, educational attainment, or income level.

The ethics of Public Health interventions include principles such as, justice, beneficence, and respect for autonomy. In recent years, there has been debate on whether or not the fluoridation of water violates these principles.

This video explores these ethical issues; it is intended to educate viewers on the ethics of water fluoridation through information of which many people are unaware of.

Concerns about water fluoridation in Nelson were raised at a health board meeting following the Government's decision to hand over the responsibility to district health boards.

Nelson Marlborough District Health Board member Judy Crowe questioned how the dosage would be monitored to prevent people from ingesting toxic levels of fluoride if it was added to the water supply.

Earlier this month the NMDHB welcomed Government plans to transfer decision-making powers for fluoridating water supplies away from local authorities. "In 1954 when fluoride was first introduced in the water supply in the city of Hastings there was no legislation in the form of health and safety as we know it today, so my question is how would this DHB set fluoride guidelines," Crowe asked the board.Bottle-fed infants, children under 8 years-old, people with impaired kidney function and those who drink a lot of fluoridated water and others with high fluoride intake from other sources such as diet and toothpaste were mentioned as some of those who would be at risk.

Crowe's questions arose from reading the international critique of the New Zealand Fluoridation Report of 2014 which raised concerns about the report being unjustifiably complacent about risks.

Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Baker said it was important that these concerns were addressed as they would also be raised by others in the community. He said typically, people should get fluoride from no more than two sources.If fluoride was added to the water supply, it would be suggested that children use a low-fluoride toothpaste. Currently the DHB recommends children use a high-fluoride toothpaste to prevent tooth decay.The Ministry of Health guidelines recommend the adjustment of fluoride to between 0.7 and 1.0 parts per million in drinking water as the most effective and efficient way of preventing dental caries."Every $1 we spend on fluoridate in drinking water we can save $88 on dental care which is a very good reason for our community to have fluoridated water," Baker said.

Fluoride Free Nelson spokeswoman Sara Cooper said the group were pleased that a member of the board was asking important questions about fluoridation.
"It is such a relief to have someone questioning this that will be listened to as Fluoride Free Nelson have been shut out of any meaningful discussions with the DHB and all promises of public meetings and communication on joint health ventures appear to be fob offs."

Despite promises of community engagement from the DHB in the last six months, Cooper said Fluoride Free Nelson and concerned members of the public had not been given an opportunity to do so. It appeared that the board did not want community input that differed from their stance, she said.
Cooper said while the Nelson City Councillors were reachable by members of the public, health board members were not and she questioned how they could be responsible to the community when people couldn't communicate with them.

Chief executive Chris Fleming said the board had adopted a position statement on fluoridation in August before the legislation was introduced to shift the responsibility onto district health boards.

The statement endorsed community water fluoridation as an important public health measure to maintain good oral health, the prevention of tooth decay and the reduction of health inequalities.

"We don't monitor and report every article about everything we have a position statement on. I don't think we should be singling out fluoride like we don't single out new evidence on alcohol or smoking, apart from when we are asking the board to make a decision," Fleming said.

Crowe said that the international critique of the New Zealand Fluoridation Report of 2014 was not new evidence and should have been included when the board formed their position statement.

"We had a very pro-response in what we were presented with information-wise and I don't believe we have been given a fair hearing."

She said board members should have a right to rethink their position and that counter-evidence for water fluoridation should have been presented to the board before making a position statement.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

It’s no surprise that the US government would look the other way when lower IQ and cancer are business as usual.

One of the major agencies that would look the other way is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

—But suppose scientists within the EPA spoke out, revolted, and issued official rebukes to their own Agency’s position on fluorides?

Talk about cognitive dissonance. Contradiction. “We at the EPA know fluorides are wonderful and safe and beautiful. Of course, our own scientists disagree. Strongly. But don’t worry, we’re ignoring them. And we’re keeping their statements out of the press. Our position on fluorides is administrative. It has nothing to do with science. Anyway, we support cancer and plummeting IQ. They’re wonderful.”

Case in point, going back 17 years. Buckle up. Here is what the EPA Union of scientists had to say about fluoridation:

“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”

“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”

“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”

“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”

“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”

“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”

“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, ‘Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”

“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”

“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled — and apparently uncontrollable — exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products…For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.”

“We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water…the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.”

“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”

That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from.

So…an employees’ union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear.

Quite clear.

The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for at least 17 years.

In 2013, the EPA denied a petition from Dr. Hirzy calling for the removal of fluorides from water supplies. In a pinch, I guess the Agency can find scientists hanging around bus stations and bars and crack houses and get them to say what they want them to say and stamp it official.

—Scientists who’ve been guzzling fluoridated water themselves and thus have microscopic IQs.

FLUOROSIS
Fluoride is safe in appropriate doses, but like anything else, it is possible to get too much of a good thing. After decades of research, the main risk linked to fluoride overuse is dental fluorosis, a cosmetic condition that kids can develop if they're exposed to excessive fluoride when they're too young.

Affected children may have teeth with white spots or lines, and in severe cases, even brown or gray discoloration on their enamel. This condition often occurs when children swallow fluoride toothpaste, which is why it's important to supervise them while they're brushing to ensure they're spitting along the way.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

For any debate to be successful, there must be integrity on both sides as well as respect. This is lacking in discussions about water fluoridation, in which name-calling and disrespect are par for the course — particularly against anyone who dare speak out against it.

Stephen Peckham, director of the Centre for Health Service Studies at the University of Kent and a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the University of Toronto, knows this all too well.

In 2014, he and a colleague published a study that concluded, "available evidence suggests that fluoride has a potential to cause major adverse human health problems, while having only a modest dental caries prevention effect."1

They recommended that water fluoridation be reconsidered globally, a trend that's already increasing as the notion of mass-medicating populations with a toxic chemical falls out of favor.

Since 2010, more than 150 communities and countries — including Israel, Portland, Oregon, and Calgary in Alberta, Canada — have rejected water fluoridation2 — so it's not as though Peckham's findings came as a complete surprise.

Still, his 2014 publication, and another published in 2015 that linked fluoridated water consumption to thyroid dysfunction, were met by a series of "poisonous attacks." "Nothing prepared me for the ferocity around fluoridation," Peckham told The Guardian. "I've been hugely and personally attacked."3

History of Attacking Opponents to Water Fluoridation Dates Back to 'Dr. Strangelove' Film

In the water fluoridation debate, those who spoke out against it have long been labeled as quacks or zealots. This can be traced back decades, in part due to Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film "Dr. Strangelove."

In the film, General Jack D. Ripper tries to stop a Communist conspiracy to harm Americans with fluoridated water and at one point states:

"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?"

Of course, water fluoridation was not a communist plot — it was started by the U.S. Public Health Service. But the film pokes fun at the John Birch Society, an extreme right-wing group that happened to be anti-fluoridation.

So, of course, anyone at the time who dared speak out against fluoridation was also ruled to be a fanatic, a radical or just a lunatic — even when they could point to legitimate science to back up their claims...............................

Dr. Oz discusses with an audience member the reasons why it is most important to clean your shower head on a regular basis. With the water getting worse (Flint, MI crisis), and toxins, medications, heavy metals, chlorine, and fluoride, its a toxic soup we bathe/shower in. It would be best to have a good quality shower filter as well...

From left Dr. Peter Cooney, Canada's chief dental officer, and local medical officer of health Paul Roumeliotis at Monday's council meeting.

CORNWALL, Ontario – Proponents of water fluoridation said Cornwall's overall health will suffer if the practice is abandoned. Paul Roumeliotis, the local medical officer of health, and Canada's chief dental officer Dr. Peter Cooney, told councillors Monday too much scare mongering is taking place from critics of the practice.

Cooney said one would have to drink as much as 15,000 litres of water in one sitting to get a toxic dose of fluoride. "There is a huge level of safety between what is in your water and what is toxic," he said.

But that hasn't stopped critics from expressing concern with the issue.

The acid used to fluoridate Cornwall's water contains arsenic, said Peter Van Caulart, executive director of the Environmental Training Institute in Niagara, prior to Monday's city council meeting. He said the 15,000 litres of hydrofluorosilicic acid in storage at the water treatment plant in Cornwall could contain as much as 800 grams of arsenic – a poisonous substance.

Van Caulart arrived at this conclusion after receiving a sample of the acid, which shows it contains about 55.75 parts per million of arsenic. The material he shared with the media prior to the council meeting has also been shared with city council, he said.

Van Caulart, who trains water and wastewater operators in Niagara, was asked to come to Cornwall by the union representing such operators at the Cornwall treatment plant. "The process of fluoridation is not a process to treat drinking water," said Van Caulart. "It's done after the water is already clean.

"There is no excuse for topping up what isn't found in the water naturally."

But that is exactly what happened Monday night at city hall when Roumeliotis lobbied city councillors to return fluoride to Cornwall's water supply.

"The Cornwall area has higher rates of chronic diseases, all of which are worsened by poor oral health," he said. "If the fluoride is not in the water (dentists) are going to be working 24-7.

"We know (area citizens) tend to be sicker, and we know there is no coverage. We know that with age, the percentage of people with dental insurance goes down. And our elderly are getting less coverage."

Many local dentists attended the Monday council meeting, and Roumeliotis said as many as 20 have signed a petition seeking a return to water fluoridation in Cornwall. He added a number of dental associations have made similar commitments.

"Oral health really is a picture of our overall health. It's (poor dental health) one of the most common chronic diseases – more common than asthma," he said.

The city has been without fluoridated water for nearly three years, after safety concerns at the treatment plant forced the city to abandon the process. Roumeliotis refuted material provided just two weeks ago from an American university professor who lobbied city council to abandon water fluoridation for good.

Among reams of material filed with the city clerk for his Monday presentation is specific mention of hydrofluorosilic acid, the material added to Cornwall's water supply in the past to create the fluoride which proponents argue results in stronger teeth. "Once introduced into drinking water, due to the pH of that water, the (acid) is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (broken down)," reads a response to a presentation made at the previous council meeting by St. Lawrence University professor Paul Connett. "After this point, (the acid) no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is therefore of no concern, whatsoever." But in its pure form hydrofluorosilic acid is extremely toxic, and city environment manager Morris McCormick has even labeled it a "significant" risk to health and safety.

Roumeliotis pointed to the health benefits of drinking fluoridated water, including a reduction in tooth decay of up to 40 per cent in people of all ages. He further suggests every dollar invested in fluoridating water results in a $38 savings in dental treatments.

The practice of fluoridating Cornwall's water was abandoned three years ago when health and safety concerns at the city's water treatment plant became evident.

It will cost taxpayers as much as $350,000 to fix the safety issues at the plant, and an additional $50,000 a year to operate with a fluoridated system.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Did you know that most of the fluoride added to your water comes from China? And it is laced with heavy metals!

A recent investigative report from Natural News confirms that fear, proving that America’s fluoride additives are all imported from China, and they’re contaminated with heavy metals.

‘The sodium fluoride added to US water supplies is contaminated with the toxic elements lead, tungsten and aluminum,’ the announcement from Natural News two weeks ago began, ‘Strontium and uranium were also found in substantial quantities in some samples, raising additional questions about the purity of industrial fluoride used for water fluoridation.’...................

Saturday, April 23, 2016

There is a disease that copycats the “normal” effects of ageing. It strikes women seven times more frequently than men.

It’s a hidden epidemic.

Yet if you’re a woman and you go to your doctor and tell him you have fatigue, brain fog, weight gain, loss of libido, or unexplained hair loss, more often than not he is going to tell you it’s normal, you’re getting older, just accept it.

Heck, he’s probably going to tell you you’re “depressed” and give you Wellbutrin, Lexapro, Paxil, Effexor or Zoloft. That’s just the modern form of telling a woman she’s “hysterical” as far as I’m concerned.

But this epidemic of hypothyroidism does have one major thing in common with aging — diminished or faulty hormone production. So doctors often miss the diagnosis.

When someone is officially diagnosed with the disease, the medical establishment goes right to the medicine cabinet and prescribes synthetic hormones. Now you have to take these for the rest of your life because these artificial hormones cause your body to stop producing its own thyroid hormones permanently. And did you know these drugs also, little by little, kill off your thyroid tissue? They destroy your thyroid gland permanently.

Fortunately, there’s an alternative treatment. In hypothyroidism cases, the thyroid gland is simply being suppressed, meaning the effects are still reversible.

Avoid all sources of fluoride — Fluoride suppresses the thyroid, and is likely the leading cause of hypothyroidism. Drink spring water, avoid soft drinks, use fluoride-free toothpaste and use a shower filter.